Election watchdog groups and the Opposition have condemned and filed petitions in the Supreme Court while the Attorney General’s (AG) Department has noted that a private member’s bill in Parliament to reconvene the Local Government (LG) authorities will require a referendum.
A private member’s bill presented by ruling Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) MP Jayantha Ketagoda to amend three acts governing LG bodies in order to give the subject minister the power to reform the LG authorities that have been dissolved, was gazetted earlier this month.
Ketagoda has however noted that the Opposition could propose amendments to the bill and that once Local Government bodies are reconvened, it would benefit not only SLPPers but members of other parties as well.
A number of provisions in this bill, gazetted on 26 June, are amended, notably the Municipal Council Ordinance, the Municipal Council Amendment Act, and the Local Authorities Act.
Despite the Government calling for nominations, the Local Government Elections have repeatedly been postponed.
The tenures of Local Government bodies ended in March. These include Municipal Councils, Urban Councils, and Pradeshiya Sabhas. As such, these councils continue to function although their tenures have expired.
PAFFREL charges bill as ‘unconstitutional’
Independent election monitoring group People’s Action for Free and Fair Elections (PAFFREL) Executive Director Rohana Hettiarachchi charged that the bill was unconstitutional and said that PAFFREL had filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the bill.
“Basically, the bill is a violation of the Constitution. Constitutionally, they cannot bring this kind of bill. It also completely violates the voting rights of people. Those are the main two reasons.
“Additionally, if this private member’s bill is passed, it gives a blank cheque to the subject minister to extend the period of the Local Government bodies according to his wishes. He could extend them by one year, five years, 10 years, or even 25 years. Anyone can challenge this and say that it will not be practised in this manner because a minister would never do that, but once a law is passed, then the minister can do it unchallenged.”
He also pointed out that provisions allowing the minister to take decisions during a crisis were dangerous as the term ‘crisis’ was ambiguous and not defined in the bill.
“Another issue is that the bill says that the minister can also take this decision whenever there is a crisis situation. What is a crisis? A crisis can be interpreted in many ways. If there is heavy rainfall and some flooding, it can be considered a crisis or even a prolonged drought could be considered a crisis. Then the minister could decide what a crisis is and take decisions with regard to the Local Government councils.”
AG writes to Parliament
Earlier this month, the Attorney General informed Parliament of the same.
“The expression ‘crisis’ occurring in proposed new Section 5(2)(c) of the Pradeshiya Sabhas Act No.15 of 1987 is vague and undefined. Further, the grounds and procedure for the exercise of discretion by the minister when reconvening a dissolved local authority are not clarified,” the Attorney General told the Secretary General of Parliament in a letter.
The Attorney General went on to say that the bill would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament as well as a referendum before it could be enacted into law.
“Furthermore, a dissolved local authority may be reconvened for an indefinite period of time without any nexus to the crisis referred to in the proposed provision. Therefore, the proposed amendment would have the effect of extending the terms of local authorities and delaying elections, and members of local authorities who have exceeded their term limit as elected representatives of the people could continue in office for an indefinite period of time without a democratically obtained mandate. Hence, the franchise of people, as well as their fundamental rights to vote and stand for elections would be affected.
“In this context, your attention is drawn for the special determination of the Supreme Court in SC (SD) Nos.20-32/2017 to the 20th Amendment to the Constitution Bill. In the circumstances, l am of the opinion that Clause 2 of the bill is inconsistent with Articles 3, 4, 12(1), and 14(1) of the Constitution and that, in order to be enacted into law, the bill would require to be passed by a special majority of Parliament and approved by the people at a referendum in terms of Article 83 of the Constitution,” the AG said in his letter.
SJB criticises bill
Meanwhile the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) has said that the bill is a means to placate the Government’s Local Government council members who had lost their council seats.
“The Attorney General has informed Parliament that this bill needs a two-thirds majority in Parliament as well as a referendum to be enacted into law. This was brought just to keep the SLPP Pradeshiya Sabha members happy, because they [members] are unhappy over having lost their positions in the councils and now they cannot even be voted back in as there are no elections,” Chief Opposition Whip SJB MP Lakshman Kiriella told The Sunday Morning.
Kiriella added that this was a mere ploy to undertake election-related canvassing.
“The Government wanted to give them some hope because there are several elections looming and to get them to work for the upcoming elections to canvas for votes. However, the Government’s plan has backfired completely because if they don’t have the money to hold an election, how can they hold a referendum?” questioned Kiriella.